Challenging notions and nature of second language learning and discourse

“Challenging notions and nature of second language learning

and discourse: an intervention using CLIL in two UK primary

classrooms”

Sarah Lister (2012) – Faculty of Education, MMU.

My professional context for the intervention to be presented,

discussed and evaluated is located as a teacher educator at a

university in the north west of England. As a former MFL

specialist teacher in both secondary and primary schools and a

Head of Modern Languages, I now work on the BA primary and

Post graduate primary education programmes. A key feature of

this role involves developing students’ knowledge and

understanding of effective primary MFL pedagogy and issues

surrounding the effective teaching of languages in the primary

context. Given that the students opting to develop their

expertise in primary languages come from disparate backgrounds

with vastly differing experiences, knowledge and understanding

and ideas about second language learning presents significant

personal and professional challenges. Being predominantly non

specialists, the challenge(s) are centred around how to

empower these students, to provide them with opportunities to

access the learning/content, providing appropriate input

tailored to their very varying linguistic capabilities,

increase levels of confidence and linguistic competence to

enable them to teach languages effectively in their very

diverse primary school contexts. It is with some of these

challenges in mind that have helped forge my personal and

professional interest in alternative and innovative pedagogies

in language teaching. The aim(s) of the intervention are

1

twofold: the first is to raise the profile and value of

languages and in particular challenge the traditional view of

language in an educational space; the second is to increase

teacher professionalism with regards to language teaching in

the primary school context. A further aim of this

intervention is to integrate effective CLIL pedagogy into the

MFL Specialism components of the BA and Post graduate Primary

education programmes.

I will first aim to explore some aspects of previous second

language research with a specific focus on CLIL, exploring the

nature, role and use of language within social and

particularly educational contexts. An outline of my small

scale action research project and a critique of the

methodology employed will then follow. I will examine and

interpret the findings in relation to the appropriate

literature, thinking and theorists. To conclude, I will

explore the potential implications for my own future practice

with reference to the wider field.

Languages, second language learning and CLIL: the wider

context

Background: The UK context: Language Learning in the UK

It is both appropriate and necessary for the purpose of this

research to view education as a form of social interaction and

wherein discourses compete for power and influence. The way

we view the world is ‘always already’ infected by language.

Patti Lather (1991) provides an apt summary ‘whatever “the

2

real” is, it is discursive’. (p.25) Taking a discursive

approach to my small scale action research requires

questioning the way(s) in which language discourse in a CLIL

context achieves definition and comes to meaning as a result

of its difference to a ‘constructed’ other which is always

lacking, lesser or derivative in some way. A fundamental aim

of this intervention is to locate itself and generate a space

wherein the traditional notions of second language discourse

are challenged and a new form of L2 discourse evolves, one

which empowers the learner, providing a real, purposeful and

meaningful context for language learning.

The major concern has undoubtedly been the apparent

reluctance of the British to learn a foreign language at all

and the declining level of achievement in this domain”.

Williams, Burden and Lanvers, (2002: 503) provides a

significant and informed judgement as to the crisis in

language learning that has been prevalent within the UK in the

twentieth and early twenty first century. The statement also

alludes to a deep rooted and intrinsic lack of motivation to

learning a foreign language, embedded and promoted within the

British media and society as a whole. The fact that the

lingua franca in the developed world is widely recognized and

acknowledged as English, precipitates the widely held view

that ‘English is enough’. This perceived lack of need also

promotes a lack of desire, resulting in poor motivation and

attitudes to language learning and a de-valuing of languages.

3

When examining the decline in language learning in British

schools, Pachler (2007) attributes much of this to the

summative standardized testing that drives language and

teaching in UK schools. Language learning as a result has

come to be perceived by learners as a skill to be performed.

Pachler (2007) also suggests that pupils opt out of language

learning as a result of predominantly extrinsic factors,

shaped particularly by culturally produced attitudes that

include perceived difficulty, the low status of language

proficiency and narrow transactional curricula.

The drive and the need to motivate language learners and make

language learning more attractive was at the forefront of

national discussions at the turn of the last decade. The

Nuffield Report (2000) was followed by two independent

language reports by Lord Dearing and King (2006, 2007)

commissioned by the then Labour government. Dearing (2007)

recognised the need to address the negative attitudes towards

language learning in the UK. Within a European context, only

Ireland has a higher percentage of monolinguals (66%) compared

with the UK’s 62%. (Eurobarometer, 2006). This is in

contrast to 81% of the British public stating that it is

useful to learn a language with only 18% of the UK population

having embarked on any kind of language learning in the past

two years.

Historically, language learning for British children was an

optional subject (Hawkins, 1996) and the domain of the middle

4

classes. This is what Bourdieu (1984) refers to as ‘cultural

capital’ and the effects of social class on children’s access

to certain aspects and opportunities for language learning.

There is a major assumption from Bourdieu (1984) that schools

have a significant role to play in countering this imbalance

of opportunity and access. In a UK context, the introduction

of the National Curriculum and the General Certificate of

Secondary Education in 1988, the 1990s saw the study of a

Modern Foreign Language (MFL) as a foundation subject in Key

Stage 3 (KS3) for all pupils from 11 to fourteen and

compulsory at Key stage 4 (KS4) for pupils aged fourteen to

sixteen from 1996. This resulted in a huge increase in the

numbers of pupils taking a GCSE in MFL.

Despite this there were serious concerns about the perceived

decline in the UK’s language capabilities at all levels. With

ever-increasing globalisation and the knowledge society it can

be argued young people have more access to learning than ever

before. A vast array of media are far removed from traditional

and increasingly outdated, transactional, topic-based MFL

learning, an ideological, fundamental and comprehensive review

and overhaul of the Modern Languages curriculum was required.

The MFL curriculum and methodologies centred around

communicative principles and teacher accountability via

examination results and testing in an effort to drive forward

standards, that are no longer relevant or motivating to many

young language learners needed to be re-evaluated and re-

5

developed alongside more innovative and dynamic approaches to

language learning, ones which strive to promote and develop

learners’ competence and confidence in L2 communication.

Research into the benefits and advantages of early language

learning in terms of increased levels of language acquisition

remains divided and unconvincing. However, there are

suggestions and indications that where there is effective

early language learning, children’s attitudes, interest and

levels of motivation are significantly higher. Early language

learning within UK primary schools is a relatively new

phenomenon although previous initiatives (Burstall report,

1974) and Tameside’s ‘Prism’ project in the 1980s have been

short-lived and limited in their success. A major

contributing factor to their downfall and limited impact was

the lack of a coherent, whole scale primary languages

policy/strategy and ineffective transition between primary and

secondary school. The Nuffield Report (2000) and the

Languages Strategy (2002) were the Government’s and

policymakers’ attempts to address the increasing challenge of

how to motivate and engage young language learners in the UK.

A great deal of research has been conducted into children’s

attitudes towards language learning. At secondary level,

students often perceive languages as being difficult, not

enjoyable or relevant, resulting in negative attitudes and

poor motivation. The Languages Strategy entitled ‘Languages

for all: languages for life’ (2002) was the first major

6

comprehensive attempt to provide and implement a cohesive

strategy to address the huge decline in second language

learning in the UK.

Whilst the introduction of an entitlement to language learning

for all KS2 pupils in UK primary schools does acknowledge the

potential benefits and heightened levels of motivation

possibly afforded by an early start and introduction to

language learning (cf. Mihaljevic Djiunovic, 1993), it does

not necessarily provide a guarantee of sustained levels of

motivation to secondary school and beyond. Studies conducted

by Burstal et al. (1974) and later by Bolster et al. (2004)

and QCA (2005) suggest that children with poor motivation and

attitudes to language learning in primary school will maintain

their negative attitudes into secondary school whilst children

demonstrating enthusiasm and confidence risk losing it if

prior language learning is not factored into the language

learning experience at secondary level, thereby allowing for

continuity and progression. What would be beneficial in our

search for solutions to maintaining children’s motivation and

positive attitudes towards language learning would be a wide

scale and in depth study to track and record any changes in

attitude and motivation as they progress through the education

system through primary and into secondary school. Does an

early start promote and sustain a more positive attitude and

motivation to learn and continue to learn a second language

even when the language learning process become more

challenging and perhaps less engaging?

7

Pecheux (1995) develops Foucault’s work on discourse further

and places greater emphasis on the conflicting nature of

discourse,that it is always in dialogue and in conflict with

other positions. For Pecheux (1995) it is ideological

struggle which lies at the heart of discourse. Like Bourdieu

(1984), Pecheux (1995) is also concerned with people who may

not be privileged within society and as a result their limited

access to education, knowledge and familiarity with

information networks and capital prevents them from having

easy access to discourses. In language terms it could be

argued that whilst the same language is spoken throughout a

country (this is not necessarily the case in UK terms), there

exists a definite sense that discourses are not equally

available to all.

Discourses help structure both our sense of identity and

reality but discourses do not exist in isolation but are the

object and site of struggle. They are not fixed but are the

site of constant struggle. It is possible therefore to

identify the contemporary language classroom as a site of

struggle in terms of pedagogical approaches to language

teaching, perceptions of language and language learning and

motivation to learn languages against a traditionally

monolingual society. This relates to what Foucault (1985)

terms as ‘practices of the self’ and are not something that

the individual invents but are “patterns that he finds in his

culture and which are proposed, suggested and imposed on him

8

by his culture, his society and his social group.” (Foucault,

1991, p.11). It is through language development that children

develop their ideas of what it is to be a person and notions

of self. It is possible to demonstrate that notions of self

and the nature of self differ within and across cultures.

This is significant to this small scale research project for

two reasons. Firstly, although for the purpose of this

assignment the focus will be on CLIL discourse in a UK

context, it is important to point out the intercultural and

multicultural nature of this research. It is particularly

pertinent with regards the previous views on notions of self

and how this is linked to language. The triangular and

European dimension of the research is important was a

deliberate decision prior to undertaking the research and it

does present some interesting indicators about language and

culture, most notably how this interacts and impacts on

attitudes and motivation to learn languages. A particularly

significant example within a language classroom is gender.

This fits in with poststructural theorists who suggest that

boys and girls are called to adopt different ‘subject

positions’ within language. This might in some way account

for the gap that exists in attitudes and motivation of boys

and girls to learn a language. Society has traditionally

portrayed language learning as the domain of girls whilst

other subjects including Science have been male dominated. If

we adopt and accept Foucault’s view of notions of the self and

identify formation, it has noteworthy implications and

significance in the context of language learning in the UK.

9

Might Foucault’s view account for and in some way explain and

validate the resistance to language learning in the UK?

Education is a fundamental site for shaping children’s

identity. However, identities are complex and do not exist in

the singular, they are shaped and influenced by multiple and

conflicting discourses that possess different criteria of

authenticity and truth. However, although identities are

constructed within discourses, individuals are not merely

passive recipients of their identities but rather identity is

formed out of a constant and endless process of developing and

of becoming.

What is perhaps of even greater significance and interest for

the purpose of this assignment is shifts in how language is

used and acquired within a CLIL context. CLIL can be defined

as "Integrating language with non-language content, in a dual-

focused learning environment" (Marsh, David. 2002) where there

is "the use of languages learnt in the learning of other

subjects" (Lang, Jack. 2002). CLIL can be viewed as an

umbrella term to refer to any learning that involves using the

foreign language as the tool in the learning of a non-language

subject and where the language and the curriculum content have

a dual and equal role. (Marsh, 2002).

Effective CLIL pedagogy therefore requires a re-

conceptualization of the role of language in learning.

Coyle’s (2006) 4Cs Framework provides such a

conceptualization. This dramatic shift in focus and emphasis

moves from a language learning approach based on the

10

acquisition of single words to ‘chunks of language’ and

grammatical progression towards an approach that combines

learning to use language and using language to learn.

Communication as defined in Coyle’s (2006) 4Cs Framework

provides a broader definition of communication which includes

recognizes students’ first language (L1) and the art of code-

switching as essential components of effective and meaningful

communication. CLIL also encompasses the learning of the

target language or second language (TL) alongside and in

tandem with its role as the vehicle for content learning.

Effective communication in a CLIL context therefore requires

both teachers and learners to engage in using and developing

language of learning, for learning and through learning. This

is a significant shift in terms of the role of language in the

process of communication and the learning experience. It also

marks a significant change in terms of the nature of the

social interaction within the classroom and the interaction

between the teacher who is already the subject and the child

who has to become the subject through the pedagogical

activities of the teacher (Foucault). It is also bound up with

notions of language and identity, challenging Foucault’s

depiction of education as a trajectory which begins as

manipulation and eventually develops into communication.

Effective CLIL requires learning to use language appropriately

and using languages to learn effectively. The language of

learning determined by the concepts and skills required by

learners to access and process the content. Language for

learning relates to the language needed by the learners to

11

learn in the foreign language (FL), enabling them to

participate fully in group discussion, develop transferable

learning strategies, the ability to summarize, hypothesize and

ask cognitively challenging questions. If this interpretation

and model of language learning and use can be upheld, it

challenges the dominant classroom discourses which ‘function

as true’ and this ‘regime of truth’ which enables us to

distinguish between true and false statements or those who are

responsible for determining truth according to status.

Language through learning is centred on the concept that

learning cannot occur without an active interaction between

language and thinking. For linguists, discourse signifies a

move away from sentences as examples of usage in the abstract,

the way language is structured as a system to more of a

concern with language in use (Brown & Yule, 1983). This

significant shift in language classroom discourse brought

about by a change in perception and pedagogical approach

through CLIL could be interpreted as a ‘Deconstruction’

(Derrida) of the usual hierarchy which privileges the avant-

garde teacher discourse and marginalizes the student one.

CLIL discourse could be a site where these usual hierarchies

of discourse are displaced or disrupted. It can be argued

that CLIL discourse produces different knowledge and produces

that knowledge differently in the way that language is used

and acquired. However, as discussed earlier, discourses

compete for power and influence. They change over time, are

in constant conflict and undergo transformations of meaning.

It is possible to suggest that CLIL discourse represents such

12

a transformation. The dominant discourse in a CLIL classroom

can be perceived or interpreted as different to previously

more traditional and dominant language classroom discourse.

The language classroom can also be seen as the site of

contestation, the arena where both the L1 and L2 strive for

dominance as the superior discourse. Both Bourdieu(1992) and

Fairclough (2001) identify the enhanced role for languages in

the exercise of power because it is mainly through discourse

that consent is achieved, ideologies are transmitted and

practices, meanings, values and identities are taught and

learnt. Power is central to discussions of discourse and this

is a reoccurring theme and discussion in Foucault’s work.

Foucault (1981) presents the idea that power is located in all

forms of behavior and social interaction. For Foucault,

power and knowledge are inextricably linked. Therefore all

the knowledge we possess is the result of power struggles.

Foucault’s view of power requires a re-evaluation of the role

of language. Discourse transmits and produces power; it

reinforces it but also undermines it and exposes it, renders

it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it (Foucault,

1978:100-1). Bourdieu (1992) challenges and criticizes the

linguistic theories of Saussure and Chomsky, arguing that

language should not only be viewed as a means of communication

but also as a medium of power through which individuals pursue

their interests, demonstrate their skills, competence and

mastery.

CLIL as a dominant discourse is exemplified and borne out

through the emergence of communities of practice to facilitate

13

the dissemination of a set of shared beliefs and theories that

are owned by that community, developed for practice through

practice. (Coyle, 2007).

Outline of research, critique and methodology

‘The classroom’ is a curious and indeterminant discursive

space, expanding and contracting to the pressures of different

discourses. In this arena, words and language therefore have

different meanings depending on the institutions and

discourses from which they have derived, that is, the

institutional and social location of those making or

evaluating them. Bakhtin (1981) suggests that all words have

a “taste” of a particular profession, genre, party, workplace,

generation, person, age group, the day or the hour. This

interpretation of language or discourse has all words tasting

of the context or contexts in which they are socially

constructed and located. To this end, any event, space or

place can never be seen as objective locations. Space is

implicated in desire, power and identity where individual’s

fears and hopes are expressed or hindered. In research

therefore, we bring our own hopes, fears and expectations to

the places and objects of our own research.

Significant research has identified a correlation between

contextual factors such as the type of environment or space

where the language learning occurs, the target language (TL)

itself and levels of motivation among language learners.

14

(Clément, 1980; Clément and Kruidener, 1985; Nunan, 1991).

Dornyei and Otto (1998) and Ushiod (2003, 2007) examine the

direct and dynamic interaction that exists between motivation

and the learner and a complex system of social relations,

cultural contexts and learning environments. Language

learners in a natural acquisition setting feel compelled to

use language to fulfil basic communication needs, are exposed

to large amounts of the TL and may even feel the desire and

motivation to be more culturally integrated. The natural

acquisition setting or space provides the language learner

with a more purposeful, authentic and meaningful language

learning context. In contrast, classroom based language

acquisition provides an artificial L2 learning environment or

space. The setting is more formal, more structured, the need

and perhaps the desire to communicate using L2 no longer

exists and is less likely to result in the learner’s desire

for cultural integration. (Clément et al. 1994; Dornyei,

1990, 1994, 2001a; Dornyei and Skehan, 2003). Based on the

theory that both identity and culture are not fixed, they are

socially constructed there is a need for the creation of a

third space wherein the exploration of language and culture

can be explored and interpreted. In this space identity and

culture can be fluid and changing as learners negotiate

different situations.

A fundamental aim of this intervention is to locate itself and

generate a space wherein the traditional notions of second

language discourse are challenged and a new form of L2

discourse evolves; one which empowers the learner, providing a

15

real and meaningful context where the learner can be both the

teacher and learner, shaping their own learning and

identities. Coyle (2007) maintains that the future of CLIL

based research lies in CLIL practitioners engaging in

meaningful discourse. This is crucial if CLIL practice is to

lead to theories of practice. One possible solution is the

creation of communities of practice wherein practitioners

engage in a collaborative and joint exploration of theories to

move CLIL pedagogy forward. This process would involve

content and language teachers working together

collaboratively, alongside subject and language trainers and

the support and development of CLIL networks to embed the

shared beliefs and CLIL theories. The significant factor with

the development of CLIL communities of practice is the

dissemination of a set of shared beliefs and theories that are

owned by that community, developed for practice through

practice.

With this in mind the intervention sought to provide an

opportunity, a third space, which utilized and strengthened

existing partnerships between the university and our partner

schools in the UK, France and Spain. The purpose was to

develop an innovative approach to teaching and learning a

second language across three European countries, exploring the

impact of Content and Language Integrated Language Learning

(CLIL) on the attitudes, motivation and engagement of children

in primary schools, with a particular focus on gender. The

schools and teachers involved in the intervention were

selected at random but with some acknowledgement and awareness

16

that they were receptive to the ideas, principles and aims of

the research. The participants and schools also varied

significantly in their language capabilities and experience of

CLIL. This is significant from the point of view that each

school and teacher began this journey from different starting

points, contexts and cultural perspectives that might have

some bearing on the data gathered. The children participating

in the research were selected on the basis of their class

teacher for the academic year 2010-11.

Schools in conjunction with the university planned and

delivered a six lesson unit of work teaching an agreed aspect

of the primary Geography curriculum through French in the two

UK schools and English in the French and Spanish schools,

based on a Content and Integrated Language Learning (CLIL)

approach. The CLIL or bi-lingual programme as it is sometimes

referred to, was not intended to replace more traditional MFL

teaching. MFL lessons were used to introduce the children to

some of the core language they would need to access the CLIL

content. Whilst the focus was clearly on using the target

language to learn and for learning but it was recognised that

the children’s first language also had an important role to

play, although CLIL was the dominant discourse. This was

preceded by a workshop and meeting at the university to

discuss and introduced to discuss the aims and objectives of

the project and explore effective pedagogical approaches to

CLIL. A live video link up via Skype enabled this to be a

three way discussion and sharing of good practice. A second

17

aim of the workshop and meeting was to support teachers in

their planning and delivery. In an attempt to make the

research more democratic and narrow the gap between researcher

and researched (Noffke and Somekh 2011), I explained that

although the schools and children were part of my research,

they too were themselves were researchers, trying to explore

what worked and what did not. The aim was to examine the

impact of CLIL pedagogy on children’s attitudes and levels of

motivation and engagement were measured using a mixed methods

approach.

The intervention was predominantly qualitative in nature.

Data was collected from September 2010 to March 2011 and had

to fit in with the demands and constraints of each school

context making the data collection process time consuming and

complex. An initial questionnaire was piloted and then

conducted in each of the four schools by the class teachers to

gain data about learners’ current perceptions, interest and

levels of engagement in MFL lessons. Questionnaires were

translated into French and Spanish, asking identical

questions. Children were asked to complete the questionnaire

that consisted of nine questions or statements to which they

were required to either circle “ very important”, “quite

important”, or “not very”, as displayed in Figure 1

(interpretation and findings).

They were also asked to respond to two open-ended questions:

“what makes learning a language easier?” and “what do you find

most difficult about learning a language?” This allowed for

18

quantitative, statistical data to be supported by more

qualitative data provided by the more open ended questions, of

an interpretive nature. Questionnaires were returned from the

four project schools with responses from one hundred children.

At mid point in the project a sample focus group of boys was

selected and interviews conducted in order to drill down into

some of the issues identified either in the questionnaire data

or from observations in CLIL lessons. Boys making up the

focus group were selected at random by the class teacher in

order to try to avoid influencing data and findings.

In addition to recorded focus group interviews with samples of

boys and girls from each of the four schools, where possible

CLIL lessons were filmed as a further source of evidence of

CLIL discourse in the classroom and potential implications for

motivation with a particular focus on gender. However, there

were some logistical issues in the data collection process.

Filming lessons was not always feasible due to time

constraints and the location of the two non UK schools.

Further constraints were evident due to the deadlines and time

constraints imposed by the external funding body. This could

potentially have impacted on the quality of data and methods

employed. An in-depth analysis of the impact of CLIL on

children’s attitudes and motivation towards language learning

would have been very beneficial at the end of the

intervention. However, there was insufficient time and space

to facilitate this. The data was however used to identify any

emerging patterns or trends.

19

Findings and interpretation

The main findings of the baseline data questionnaire suggest

predominantly positive views regarding the importance of

learning a language and how much they enjoy learning a

language. (Figures 1&2)

Figure 1

20

Figure 2

Worthy of note in this initial baseline is the significant

difference and disparity between the girls and boys’ responses

most notably in France. This is in contrast to English boys

and girls and Spanish boys and girls where there is little

difference within each group. The most significant

difference is evident in the comparison between the percentage

number of English boys and girls and that of their French and

Spanish counterparts. With the exception of the French boys,

the percentage of French girls and Spanish boys and girls is

almost two thirds that of English boys and girls. This would

seem to uphold traditional perceptions of poor attitudes and

motivation to language learning in the UK. Where it is also

worth noting is that the percentage of English boys and girls

is almost identical and equally low, perhaps indicating that

the gender difference in primary school children is less

significant than in secondary school. This would support the

view held by some researchers (Chambers, 1999; Williams,

21

Burden & Lanvers, 2002) whose studies suggest that motivation

decreases with age. Another interesting piece of data in

Figure 1 is the high percentage of both Spanish boys and girls

who perceive language learning to be very important. Here

again as with the English boys and girls there is little if

any difference in the percentage of boys and girls. This too

would support the view that the perceived gender differences

do not appear to be as prevalent in primary children as in

secondary school children. This initial data would also

indicate potential cultural differences with regards how the

dominant discourses perceive the importance of language

learning, particularly English. If we acknowledge or accept

English as the more dominant discourse then this might account

for a higher percentage of French and Spanish children

perceiving language learning as very important. The

traditional and dominant discourse evident in the mass media

and new forms of media would appear to perpetuate the

perceived lack of need or importance of learning another

language and the image of English as the dominant, more

superior discourse.

When compared to the data collected from the second question’

“do you enjoy learning a language?” (Figure 2) also yields

some interesting comparative data, particularly among the boys

and across countries. Once again there is little difference in

gender terms but what does present itself as interesting the

seeming disparity and tension that exists with French girls

and Spanish boys and girls. Whilst they regard language

learning as very important the percentage who enjoy learning a

22

language is reduced by more than a third. This raises some

interesting pedagogical questions. Might teaching methodology,

classroom environment or space or classroom discourse in terms

of power and knowledge account for some of this disparity?

Whilst the content was agreed, to impose how this content

would be taught had to be flexible to allow for educational

and pedagogical differences across contexts would have been

impossible and have had a negative impact on the intervention.

There needed to be a recognition of difference, an in-built

flexibility, an understanding and acceptance that whilst there

were common aims and objectives and an agreed content, how

this was to be implemented and delivered was to be constructed

differently to take into account differing notions of identity

and knowledge according to the different cultures and

societies involved.

From the data collected from both teachers and children, there

are significant indicators to suggest that the project has had

a hugely positive impact on children’s motivation and levels

of engagement. Comments from both boys and girls indicate

increased motivation and enjoyment. Whilst the data does not

suggest a significant difference overall between the genders,

teachers have noted significant differences and changes among

some of the traditionally de-motivated and previously

disengaged boys, who were often disengaged or disruptive

during discrete MFL lessons. Observations of CLIL lessons in

both the UK and French schools, provided opportunities to

witness this first hand. The boys were enthusiastic and

contributed positively. The increase in children’s motivation

23

and engagement is supported by some of the following quotes

from boys who state:

‘I like the idea of learning (French) through another subject because you don’t

know you are doing it.’

‘I enjoyed it and would do it again and

would like to learn Maths in French. I think it is a very good idea.’

‘I would recommend this way of teaching because we learned lots and you have to

listen very hard to understand’.

Girls too shared the boys’ enthusiasm stating:

‘It’s a great idea because you can learn two things at once’ and ‘I would recommend

this way of teaching because we learned lots and you have to listen very hard to

understand.’

Implications for future practice and research

The rushed nature of some of the data collection and delivery

of some of the content is symptomatic of the pressures of time

and space in schools. Space and time for any language

learning in the primary curriculum is at a premium and is

often a low priority for schools against the neo-liberal

backdrop of Ofsted and a target driven marketplace where

success is measured against performance indicators and

examination results. This lack of space and time is further

compounded by the fact that CLIL as both a pedagogical

24

approach and discourse is a relatively unknown and unproven

quantity, especially in the UK. The lack of discrete spaces

and marginalized nature of CLIL reflects the dominance of a

standard language that is English. However, it is necessary

to view these limited spaces and time as a basis from which to

grow and develop. The process of change and creation of a

wider space and time for CLIL is slow and challenging.

Efforts to embed CLIL in our MFL undergraduate and

postgraduate teaching programmes are beginning to bear fruit

with students becoming co-researchers and researchers in their

own right within this space. This along with a continuation

of this intervention may go some way to helping to develop and

shape students’ primary teaching MFL identities and challenge

perceived notions of identity, knowledge and power. This move

for change exists within a socially constructed context(s) and

therefore is subject to using socially constructed terms such

as first language (L1), second language (L2) and target

language (TL), all of which infer first language as the

dominant discourse. They are all socially constructed

meanings. The challenge for CLIL is to breakdown and contest

these socially constructed views of discourse and the power

associated with first language as the dominant discourse.

Bibliography

25

An introduction to Critical discourse analysis in education

second edition edited by Rebecca Rogers (2011) Routledge New

York

Atkinson, D. Brown,T. & England, J. (2006) Regulatory

Discourses in Education a Lacanian perspective, Peter Lang

Publishing Switzerland

Bloome, D. Grenfell, M. Hardy,C. Pahl,K. Rowsell, J. & Brian

Street (2012)Ethnography and Education Bridging New Literacy

Studies and Bourdieu Routledge New York

Bourdieu, P. (1992) Language and Symbolic Power Polity Press

Cambridge

Brown; G. &Yule; G. (1983) Discourse Analysis Language

Burden, R. Lanvers, U. & Williams, M. (2002) ‘French is the

Language of Love and Stuff’: Student Perceptions of Issues

Related to Motivation in Learning a Foreign Language

British Educational Research Journal Vol.28, No.4 (Aug 2002)

pp.503-528 Taylor & Francis Group UK

Cary; Lisa J. (2006) Curriculum Discourse, Postmodern Theory

and Educational Research Spaces Peter Lang Publishing New York

Chambers, G. (1999) Motivating Language Learners Multilingual

Matters Cleveland

26

Coyle, D. Hood, P. & Marsh, D. (2010)CLIL: Content and

Language Integrated Learning Cambridge University Press

Cambridge

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007) Discourse in Content and Language

Integrated Learning (CLIL) Classrooms John Benjamins

Publishing Amsterdam

Discourse resistance and identity formation edited by Jerome

Satterthwaite, Wendy Martin and Lorna Roberts (2006) Trentham

Books London

Dornyei,Z & Schmidt, R. (2001) Motivation and Second Language

Acquisition University of Hawaii Press Hawaii

Dornyei, Z. & Swan, M. (2001) Motivational Strategies in the

Language Classroom Cambridge University Press Cambridge

Erneling, Christina E. (2010) Towards Discursive Education

Philosophy, Technology and Modern Education Cambridge

University Press Cambridge

Fairclough, N. (2010) Critical Discourse Analysis: The

Critical Study of Language Pearson Education Ltd UK

Fairclough, N. (2001) Language & Power Pearson Education Ltd

Essex England

27

Grace, W. & McHoul, A. (2002) Routledge Oxford

Learning & Knowledge edited by Robert McCormick & Carrie

Paechter (1999) The Open University

Maclure, M. (2003) Discourse in Educational and Social

Research (Conducting Educational Research) Open University

Press Buckingham

Michel Pecheux Automatic Discourse Analysis (1995) edited by

Hak, J. & Helsloot, N. Utrecht Studies in Language &

Communication Amsterdam

Scollon, R. & Wong Scollon, S. (2003) Discourse in Place

Language in the Material World Routledge London

The disciplining of education New Languages of Power and

Resistance (2004) edited by Jerome Satterthwaite, Elizabeth

Atkinson and Wendy Martin Trentham Books Stoke UK

28

29